In the 1916 case of American Express Company v. United States Horse Shoe Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of American Express. The dispute arose when a shipment of horse shoes was damaged during transit by an express company that later became part of American Express. The court held that under common law, a corporation acquiring another assumes its liabilities as well as its assets unless there is an agreement to the contrary at the time of acquisition. However, it also found that this rule did not apply because there had been no merger or consolidation between companies but rather a purchase and sale transaction where one company bought certain assets from another and assumed specific liabilities related to those assets only. Therefore, since American Express did not assume all obligations and debts from previous companies but only some specified ones agreed upon during their transactions with them; they were not liable for damages caused by these prior entities.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of American Express Company v. United States Horse Shoe Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contract between two parties which restricted competition in trade and commerce was fundamentally flawed. The dissenting justices believed that such contracts were inherently harmful to public interest as they stifled competition, leading to monopolies and unfair business practices. They contended that any agreement or contract aimed at restraining free trade should be deemed illegal under antitrust laws, irrespective of its reasonableness or unreasonableness. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on 'rule of reason', arguing instead for an absolute prohibition against all forms of restraint on trade and commerce. The dissenters also expressed concern over potential misuse by powerful corporations who could use such agreements to dominate markets and eliminate competitors.